In this book, the
author argues that the various post-exilic prophetic works, in spite of
their differences, share a common perception that the priesthood was
somehow failing in its duties to the people and to God. These
prophetic works, she posits, not only critique the priesthood but hold
the priests largely responsible for the fact that the promises and
blessings of Isaiah 40-55 had not yet been fulfilled (p. 2). Moreover,
she states that a critical disposition towards the priesthood is not
unique to post-exilic prophecy but is in fact a feature that the
post-exilic prophetic works share with many pre-exilic prophetic texts.

With the many current
debates in Biblical Studies over the dating of biblical texts, it is
important to state from the outset that Tiemeyer’s discussion of
post-exilic prophetic materials is limited to those texts, namely Isaiah
56-66, Malachi, Haggai, and Zechariah, that the majority of scholars
regard as dating to the Persian period. She also examines the
non-prophetic work of Ezra-Nehemiah, and various pre-exilic works where
relevant, with Hosea receiving the most attention of the texts in that
latter category. Tiemeyer has arranged the book in a topical fashion.
She begins with a lengthy discussion of how one should delineate the
passages that critique the priesthood, deals with the dating of these
passages in a separate chapter, and then includes a series of chapters
grouping together texts by the particular critiques they level at the
priesthood; e.g., Chapter 7 deals with texts that allege the priests
engage in unorthodox rites and Chapter 10 with those that attack the
priesthood for their “cultic neglect.” Certain texts are thus dealt
with at various points throughout the book.

The major strength of this book is
its extremely close reading of passages. Most of the texts with which
Tiemeyer deals do not actually use the words כהןor כהנים,
and so the relevance of the texts to her argument and her
interpretations of them often hinge on a particular phrase or the
repointing of a difficult word. While there is a certain degree of
speculation involved in this enterprise, Tiemeyer’s readings are
generally reasonable and display a mastery of the different manuscript
traditions. Tiemeyer’s technical skills are truly beyond question. Her
overall argument, too, is convincing. While it is a commonplace of
biblical scholarship that social critique stands at the heart of
Israelite prophecy, Tiemeyer makes the case well that, apart from more
general diatribes against those in power, post-exilic prophetic
literature is also concerned more specifically with the behavior of the
priesthood. In this, post-exilic prophecy stands not apart from but
alongside many pre-exilic prophetic texts. Yet, the priesthood
nonetheless seems to have seen itself as just and holy (see Chapter 4
for a discussion of the priests’ claim to righteousness).

Despite the
persuasiveness of her overarching thesis, there are areas where Tiemeyer
could have been clearer or gone further in making her argument. In
terms of clarity, it would have been helpful for the passages in
question to have been quoted more fully. At times, her lines of
argument were difficult to follow without having a copy of the BHS, LXX,
and BDB on hand. In addition, one sometimes longed for a more involved
discussion of the social and political realities of the Persian period.
If one follows Tiemeyer’s argument, the priesthood was very unpopular in
prophetic circles, and so one wonders how this fact might have related
to the waning importance of prophecy in this period, the, in some ways,
theocratic nature of post-exilic Judean society, or even the processes
leading to the final redaction of the Pentateuch.

A greater engagement
with certain areas of biblical scholarship, too, would have been
desirable. This was most apparent in her discussions of Ezra-Nehemiah’s
critique of priestly (and other) intermarriages (Chapter 8) and the
issues surrounding priestly purity (Chapter 11 and elsewhere). One
finds it surprising that many important recent works on these topics,
including those of Saul Olyan, Jonathan Klawans, and Christine Hayes,
were neither discussed nor cited in the book. Even the work of Jacob
Milgrom is very sparsely cited. In addition, Tiemeyer’s use of cultic
terminology at times seems imprecise. On p. 225, she states that
impurity and holiness are opposites of one another. While this
characterization is perhaps limited to the particular situation
described, she does at other points appear to use the terms “defile” and
“profane” interchangeably (e.g., p. 220). Her discussion of the
relationship between sin and impurity (see p. 239 in particular) also
strikes one as inadequate in light of Klawans’s recent work on the
subject.

Similarly, in her discussion of the
attitudes displayed towards Gentiles in various Isaianic passages
(Chapter 14), she uses the terms “convert” and “proselyte” in a manner
implying that she sees the process of conversion as already having
existed in the Persian period, making no reference to Shaye Cohen’s
cogent argument that it was only in the mid to late Hellenistic period
that religious conversion became possible. In a related sense, Tiemeyer
applies the term “convert” to foreigners who have “attached themselves”
(נלוה)
to Yahweh; a discussion of how that term may have related to the later
usage of the word גרwould have further enhanced her
treatment of this topic.

These issues aside,
Tiemeyer’s work will make a valuable resource for those interested in
the Persian period, prophecy, and matters of cult. Her overall argument
that criticism of the priesthood is not “a marginal phenomenon…but
rather represents a consistent trend” in post-exilic prophecy is
compelling (p. 4). The seeming antagonism between priest and prophet is
especially intriguing when one considers the fact that some biblical
prophets were priests themselves. Thus, in addition to bringing one
much closer to understanding how prophets regarded the priesthood in
this period, this book also offers insight into how some priests saw
their own brethren. It has long been postulated that the sectarianism
of the Hellenistic and Roman periods saw its birth in an earlier era,
and Tiemeyer provides yet further evidence that this was in fact the
case.